Wednesday, August 31, 2011


When it's too urgent to "learn before"


The Blue Angels' solo pilots perform a maneuver during the Pensacola Beach Air Show Generally, it's a good idea to drive knowledge management by "knowledge pull".
 When people need knowledge, they seek for it and find it. Knowledge is drive by need, and delivered "just in time". Just in time knowledge and knowledge pull is a very efficient approach to KM.
But sometimes, it's just too urgent to "learn before" and to rely on "just in time knowledge".

Imagine a disaster - a fire, or a rail crash, or an accident. Here, time is at a premium. There is no time to pull knowledge, and no time for "just in time". Unless the knowledge is at your fingertips immediately, it will be too late. In cases like this, the knowledge needs to be prepared in advance.

Think about an aircraft that gets into trouble, for example. There is no time for the pilot to get in touch with other pilots and ask them for advice, or to call hadquarters and ask what to do. The knowledge has to be prepared in advance, just in case. And for the majority of airline incidents, that knowledge has already been prepared as checklists.
Read this transcript from a cockpit voice recorder (form Atul Gwande's book "the checklist manifesto") and see how the pilots, faced by an emergency situation, reach for their checklist.

lBANG (explosive decompression of cargo doors, windows blow out of business class, 9 passengers lost)

lCAPTAIN “what the f*** was that”

lFIRST OFFICER “I don’t know”

lFO “put your mask on, Dave”

lC “Yeah”

lFO “Honolulu Center – did you want us to turn left?”

lRADIO “Continental One Heavy Affirmative”

lFO “Turning now”

lC “I can’t get any oxygen”

lFO “What do you want me to do now?”

l(Unidentified voice) “F***”

lFO “You OK?”

lC “Yeah. You want me to read the checklist?”

lFO “Yeah, I got it out. When you’re ready”

lC “Ready”

In a situation like this - when a plane explodes, a train crashes, an oil rig blows out, a factory catches fire - you had better have prepared the knowledge in advance, because there won't be time to "learn before".

Tuesday, August 30, 2011


KM in the NRC - Quantified success story 20


20 euros An interesting post here about Knowledge Management within the Nuclear Energy Commission.

A few things struck me - firstly that NRC estimates it loses 4,000 work years of experience every year through attrition and retirement.

Secondly, the KM Framework thay are using to deal with this, incluring retention, mentoring, communities of practice etc.

Finally, they give us a value figure

By making information readily available through the Knowledge Center, NRC estimates it saved $37 million between October 2009 and September 2010, Eng said. Having communities of practice for new inspectors and providing links to training resources, for example, has decreased the time it takes a new employee to pass his oral board by six months, down to a year and a half. Those employees are able to work on their own sooner as opposed to being paired with more experienced workers.


So the value in this case is measured through more rapid onboarding. There may be additional value through better decision making, and fewer errors, but these are harder to quantify

Sunday, August 28, 2011


When "copy exactly" pays off in KM


How do you transfer knowledge and practice from a development site to mass production sites?

This is a big problem for Intel - chip manufacture is a compleex process, and errors need to be avoided. It is essential that technology transfer to mass production takes place as quickly as possible, without disruptive quality issues, and with the highest possible need.  No time is available to debunk new problems that occur during the transfer.

Intel came up with a solution that at first sight is counter intuitive - a solution designed to avoid making improvements. 

But you know the old phrase "if it works, don't mess with it"?

What Intel found was that if it's really complex and works, then seriously don't mess with it; not even to the tiniest amount.

According to the article "the evolution of Intel's copy exactly technology transfer method" by Chris McDonald, Intel have tried many different transfer strategies.
For the 1.5 micron chip, work process flos were far simpler than they are today, Intel used a small band of technical experts to orchestrate successful technology transfer, often introducing improvements to the equipment process on the way.  Because of the small number of variables, it was simple to troubleshoot any results that did not come acts as expected.

For the 1.0 micron chip, started get more complicated and a structured method was introduced, where changes could still be introduced.  Figure one shows how the first production factory, Fab 1, delivered yields there were similar to the development plant, but the second and third factories which make changes to the process and equipment gave much poorer yields, and it took years to catch up.  The same learning curve was repeated independently by every factory.

For the sub micron chips, Intel introduced their "copy exactly" principle for technology transfer.  In its simplest for this says that "everything that might affect the process, or how it is to be run, is to be copied down to the finest detail unless it is either physically impossible to do so, what there isn't a overwhelming competitive benefits to introducing change.  This is a very different philosophy, and quite difficult for engineers to follow, because engineers are typically trained in rewarded for making improvements.  However Intel found that almost every "improvement" led to a decrease in yield. As a result , they ensure rigid copying; the same pumps, the same length of hoses, the same raw materials, the same manufacturers and so on.  You can see the results in figure three and figure four, where the first and second fabricator plants were able to match the development plant exactly.

Here's what the author concludes

The Copy EXACTLY! method has proven itself as a technique for semiconductor technology transfer. A new process flow and products can be introduced to production in minimum time with equivalent yields and without the introduction of product-quality issues. Both manufacturer and customers can reduce their time to market. This approach could equally be employed in other industries where the technology is complex and has many interacting variables affecting the end result

Copy Exactly is obviously not the answer to every knowledge transfer problem for technology transfer problem, but it shows that in one context at least, there is benefit in cloning rather than reinventing.

Friday, August 26, 2011


Helpdesk stories - old but good!


HELP > A woman called the Canon help desk with a problem with her printer. The tech asked her if she was "running it under Windows." The woman responded, "No, my desk is next to the door. But that's a good point. The man sitting in the cubicle next to me is under a window, and his is working fine."
**********
Overheard in a computer shop: Customer: "I'd like a mouse mat, please." Salesperson: "Certainly sir, we've got a large variety." Customer: "But will they be compatible with my computer?"
**********
I once received a fax with a note on the bottom to fax the document back to the sender when I was finished with it, because he needed to keep it.
**********
Customer in computer shop: "Can you copy the Internet onto this disk for me?"
**********
I work for a local ISP. Frequently we receive phone calls that start something like this: Customer: "Hi. Is this the Internet?"
**********
Customer: "So that'll get me connected to the Internet, right?" Tech Support: "Yeah." Customer: "And that's the latest version of the Internet, right?" Tech Support: "Uhh...uh...uh...yeah."
**********
Customer: "My computer crashed!" Tech Support: "It crashed?" Customer: "Yeah, it won't let me play my game." Tech Support: "All right, hit Control-Alt-Delete to reboot." Customer: "No, it didn't crash-it crashed." Tech Support: "Huh?" Customer: "I crashed my game. That's what I said before. I crashed my spaceship and now it doesn't work." Tech Support: "Click on 'File,' then 'New Game.'" Customer: [pause] "Wow! How'd you learn how to do that?"
**********
Got a call from a woman said that her laser printer was having problems: the bottom half of her printed sheets were coming out blurry. It seemed strange that the printer was smearing only the bottom half. I walked her through the basics, then went over and printed out a test sheet. It printed fine. I asked her to print a sheet, so she sent a job to the printer. As the paper started coming out, she yanked it out and showed it to me. I told her to wait until the paper came out on its own. Problem solved.
**********
I had been doing Tech Support for Hewlett-Packard's DeskJet division for about a month when I had a customer call with a problem I just couldn't solve. She could not print yellow. All the other colors would print fine, which truly baffled me because the only true colors are cyan, magenta, and yellow. For instance, green is a combination of cyan and yellow, but green printed fine. Every color of the rainbow printed fine except for yellow. I had the customer change ink cartridges. I had the customer delete and reinstall the drivers. Nothing worked. I asked my coworkers for help; they offered no new ideas. After over two hours of troubleshooting, I was about to tell the customer to send the printer in to us for repair when she asked quietly, "Should I try printing on a piece of white paper instead of this yellow paper?"
**********
A man attempting to set up his new printer called the printer's tech support number, complaining about the error message: "Can't find the printer." n the phone, the man said he even held the printer up in front of the screen, but the computer still couldn't find it.
**********
And another user was all confused about why the cursor always moved in the opposite direction from the movement of the mouse. She also complained that the buttons were difficult to depress. She was very embarrassed when we asked her to rotate the mouse so the tail pointed away from her.
**********
Customer: "Hello? I'm trying to dial in. I installed the software okay, and it dialed fine. I could hear that. Then I could hear the two computers connecting. But then the sound all stopped, so I picked up the phone to see if they were still connected, and I got the message, 'No carrier,' on my screen. What's wrong?"
**********
An unfailingly polite lady called to ask for help with a Windows installation that had gone terribly wrong. Customer: "I brought my Windows disks from work to install them on my home computer." Training stresses that we are "not the Software Police," so I let the little act of piracy slide. Tech Support: "Umm-hmm. What happened?" Customer: "As I put each disk in it turns out they weren't initialized." Tech Support: "Do you remember the message exactly, ma'am?" Customer: (proudly) "I wrote it down. 'This is not a Macintosh disk. Would you like to initialize it?'" Tech Support: "Er, what happened next?" Customer: "After they were initialized, all the disks appeared to be blank. And now I brought them back to work, and I can't read them in the A: drive; the PC wants to format them. And this is our only set of Windows disks for the whole office. Did I do something wrong?"
**********
For a computer programming class, I sat directly across from someone, and our computers were facing away from each other. A few minute into the class, she got up to leave the room. I reached between our computers and switched the inputs for the keyboards. She came back and started typing and immediately got a distressed look on her face. She called the tutor over and explained that no matter what she typed, nothing would happen. The tutor tried everything. By this time I was hiding behind my monitor and quaking red-faced. I typed, "Leave me alone!" They both jumped back as this appeared on their screen. "What the..." the tutor said. I typed, "I said leave me alone!" The kid got real upset. "I didn't do anything to it, I swear!" It was all I could do to keep from laughing out loud. The conversation between them and HAL 2000 went on for an amazing five minutes. Me: "Don't touch me!" Her: "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to hit your keys that hard." Me: "Who do you think you are anyway?!" Etc. Finally, I couldn't contain myself any longer, and fell out of my chair laughing. After they had realized what I had done, they both turned beet red. Funny, I never got more than a C- in that class.
**********
This guy calls in to complain that he gets an "Access Denied" message every time he logs in. It turned out he was typing his username and password in capital letters. Tech Support: "Ok, let's try once more, but use lower case letters." Customer: "Uh, I only have capital letters on my keyboard."
**********
Email from a friend: "CanYouFixTheSpaceBarOnMyKeyboard?"
**********
My friend was on duty in the main lab on a quiet afternoon. He noticed a young woman sitting in front of one of the workstations with her arms crossed across her chest, staring at the screen. After about 15 minutes he noticed that she was still in the same position, only now she was impatiently tapping her foot. He asked if she needed help and she replied "It's about time! I pressed the F1 button over twenty minutes ago!"

Thursday, August 25, 2011


Quantified success story 19; Chevron, $2m pa savings


Chevron
This is the text of a Chevron Press release from January 1999 summarising the CEOs speech to the Knowledge Management World Summit in San Francisco, California
I have a full copy of the speech - email me if you would like to see it.

Monday January 11, 5:00 pm Eastern Time
Company Press Release
SOURCE: Chevron Corp.
Once an Obscure Discipline, 'Knowledge Management' Is Now a Business Necessity, Says Chevron Chairman
SAN FRANCISCO, Jan. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- The discipline of ``managing knowledge'' -- once an obscure branch of management theory -- has evolved to deliver enormous benefits to companies that have embraced it, and it is now essential to staying competitive, Chevron Chairman and CEO Ken Derr said here today.
``The techniques for managing knowledge and building a learning organization -- such as best-practice sharing, benchmarking, networking, new planning tools and work-tracking software -- have proven extremely valuable to us,'' Derr told the Knowledge Management World Summit.
He credited these techniques for helping Chevron achieve a 30 percent productivity gain, a 50 percent improvement in safety performance and more than $2 billion in operating cost reductions during the 1990s. But managing knowledge is no longer just a performance issue, he said, ``Today, it's a reputation issue as well, directly affecting a company's ability to win new business and retain top employees.''
Chevron was noted recently in the new book, ``If We Only Knew What We Know,'' published by the American Productivity & Quality Center. Chevron also made a recent ``top 20'' list of ``most admired knowledge enterprises'' in a study co-sponsored by the Journal of Knowledge Management.
``We appreciate this recognition, but our challenge now is to remain an admired knowledge enterprise -- and that's not going to be easy,'' said Derr. ``Yesterday's learning curve has become today's race track.''
Despite today's low oil prices, the long-term forecast for the global energy business is one of growth and opportunity, said Derr. ``This year, we have to further reduce operating costs and sustain a $5 billion capital-investment program at the same time. So, systematically finding better ways to work is going to be even more important for us in the future.''
Derr credited knowledge sharing partly for helping Chevron cut its energy costs by $200 million a year. He also said Chevron has saved hundreds of millions of dollars through application of its in-house project-management system, which combines best practices from both inside and outside the company.
Knowledge-management techniques have also helped Chevron restructure its gasoline retailing business and drill oil and gas wells faster and cheaper, said Derr. Further, Chevron recently completed installation of its new Global Information Link (GIL) system, which will help drive a more rapid exchange of know-how between employees. The massive overhaul was completed in just one year using Chevron's project-management process, while similar projects elsewhere have taken as long as four years. GIL replaced every personal computer in the company with a common machine, software and connective system, creating a single desktop and operating environment worldwide.
Chevron has also improved refinery performance through a network of ``process masters,'' and has widened its search for better oil-production methods by creating a team of ``technology brokers,'' said Derr.


Nonaka in 60 seconds


Stopwatch
Below is a "60 second review" of Nonaka and Takeuichi's "The Knowledge Creating Company", written by my friend and ex-KM-colleague Gareth Edwards
Knowledge is justified true belief, quite different from information. Knowledge is about belief, action, meaning. Knowledge is context specific and relational.
Different Manifestation of Knowledge
Tacit vs explicit knowledge

Cycle of Knowledge Creation
1.  Socialisation
2.  Externalisation
3.  Combination
4.  Internalisation

Different Types of Knowledge
1.  Sympathised
2.  Conceptualised
3.  Systemic
4.  Operational

Enabling Conditions for Knowledge Creation
1.  Intent
2.  Autonomy
3.  Fluctuation and creative chaos
4.  Redundancy
5.  Requisite variety

Five Phase Process for Knowledge Creation
1.  Sharing tacit knowledge
2.  Creating concepts
3.  Justifying concepts
4.  Building an archetype
5.  Cross-leveling knowledge across the organisation

Management Style for Knowledge Creation
Middle-up-down management: middle managers are agents of knowledge creation.

Hypertext Organisation Model
3 layers of concept for new organisational model:
1.  Business system layer
2.  Project team layer
3.  Knowledge layer

Practical Implications
1.  Create a knowledge vision
2.  Develop a knowledge crew
3.  Build a high density field of interaction at the front line
4.  Piggy back on new product development process
5.  Adopt middle-up-down management
6.  Switch to a hypertext organisation
7.  Construct a knowledge network with the outside world

Dichotomies to Avoid
Don't get hung up about the differences between the following "poles" (as perceived by Western mindset):
1.  Tacit/explicit
2.  Body/mind
3.  Individual/organisation
4.  Top-down/bottom-up
5.  Bureaucracy/task force
6.  Relay/rugby
7.  East/west

Wednesday, August 24, 2011


Nonaka on KM Strategy


strategy
The following items are quotes from Nonaka and Takeuchi, the Knowledge Creating Company, mainly from Chapter 8,  some from Chapter 5. They are a useful check to ensure our strategies are on the correct track


1.   Create a knowledge vision

Top management should create a knowledge vision and communicate it within the organization.

A knowledge vision should define the “field” or “domain” that gives corporate members a mental map of the world they live in and provides a general direction regarding what kind of knowledge they ought to seek to create.

The essence of strategy lies in the developing the organizational capability to acquire, create, accumulate and exploit the knowledge domain.

For example, … Kao defines its knowledge domain as “surface science” … NEC includes pattern recognition and image processing as part of its core technologies …

Without a vision, knowledge may be based solely on past experience, particularly successful ones …. it becomes difficult to turn to something new or different

2.   Develop a knowledge crew

Highly subjective insights, intuitions and hunches are at the root of knowledge creation.

…. A knowledge creating company needs diversity in the pool of talents … requisite variety … is one of the enabling conditions.

… ensure that the diverse pool of talents …. Maintain their freedom and autonomy

… three categories of knowledge crew … knowledge practitioners, knowledge engineers, knowledge officers

… knowledge engineers take the lead in converting knowledge, ….and facilitating … across different organizational level … they are the project leaders of the organizational knowledge creation process

Knowledge practitioners are responsible for accumulating and generating both tacit and explicit knowledge … most of them work at the front lines of business

Knowledge officers are responsible for managing the total organizational knowledge-creation process at the corporate level… are top or senior managers … (1) articulating grand concepts … (2) establishing a knowledge vision … (3) setting standards for justifying the value of knowledge …

Crew members should be evaluated in terms of how many new endeavors have been attempted.

3.   Build a high density field of interaction at the front line

A high density field refers to an environment in which frequent and intensive reactions among crew members take place.

…. Our theory on knowledge creation is anchored to the very important assumption that human knowledge is created and expanded through the social interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge … our hunches, perceptions, mental models, beliefs, and experiences are converted to something that can be communicated and transmitted in formal and systematic language

Crew members, especially those at the front line, carry out … a dialogue with the market … knowledge is embedded in the market

4.   Piggy back on new product development process

… the new product development process happens to be the core process for creating new organizational knowledge

To manage the new-product development process companies must …

First, maintain a highly adaptive and flexible approach … recognize that product development seldom proceeds in a linear and static manner. It involves an iterative, dynamic and continuous process of trial and error

Second .. make sure that a self-organizing project team is overseeing the new-product development process … give autonomy to the project team … tolerate fluctuation and creative chaos

Third … encourage the participation on non-experts … which adds requisite variety

5.   Adopt middle-up-down management

Top management articulates … dream … front-line employees … look at reality … Middle managers … synthesize the tacit knowledge of both … make it explicit and incorporate it into new technologies, products and programs.

6.   Switch to a hypertext organization
A hierarchy is the most efficient structure for the acquisition, accumulation and exploitation of knowledge, while a task force is the most effective structure for the creation of new knowledge. Recategorizing and recontextualizing … knowledge … necessitates the establishment of a third layer we called the knowledge base… The knowledge base layer … focuses on storing and reinterpreting both tacit and explicit knowledge
(The knowledge base) … does not exist as an actual organisational entity, but is embedded in corporate vision, organizational culture, or technology.
… a hypertext organization … accommodates all three layers
Although it is not easy, a switch to a hypertext organization is necessary … First, it makes the life of crew members a lot easier, because they only have to be in one layer at a time… Second, the quality of the knowledge tapped by the organization increases, since a specialization of sorts takes place.

7.   Construct a knowledge network with the outside world
Crew members have to mobilize the tacit knowledge held by … outside stakeholders through social interactions… Most customers’ needs are tacit …
NEC … Customer ranging from high school students to professional computer enthusiasts … shared their experience of using the TK-80. Leading apparel companies in Japan … send their own sales force to the selling floors of major department stores … Sharp .. established two “customer boards” … in its new product development process.


Tuesday, August 23, 2011


The KM Framework - an analogy


Abacus I posted a few days ago about the importance of a Knowledge Management Framework. This prompted some questions, including one from Liu, looking for an analogy.

The analogy I use the most, is to compare the KM Framework with other management frameworks, showing that these are also an interconnecting framework of people, processes, technologies and governance, which cannot work if there are holes in the framework. One of the easiest to understand, because everyone is involved with it, is financial management. I know knowledge and money are not the same, but both require a company-wide management framework if they are to flow round the company in an effective and systematic way.

If you Google "Financial Management Framework", this will give you many examples, most of which contain common elements, and most of which contain a mix of people, process, and governance (strangely technology is often missing from these frameworks, presumably either because financial technology is pervasive and taken for granted, or because the framework should be technology-independent).

Lets look at some of those common elements, and then, lets ask what happens if some of these are missing.

People
The frameworks all contain defined roles and responsibilities, such as
  • Budget holders - the people accountable for money within projects and operations
  • Accountants and Cost engineers - the people doing the nuts and bolts of money-tracking
  • Central finance team - the people who shuffle money between the projects and operations
  • CFOs and Finance Directors - the people accountable for the financial management system itself
Processes
The frameworks all contain certain processes, such as
  • Financial planning and forecasting
  • Budgeting
  • Invoicing
  • Expenditure management
  • Cost tracking
  • Timewriting
  • Reporting
Governance
All the frameworks mention governance, which typically includes
  • Financial policies
  • Monitoring
  • Auditing
  • Training and support
If there were mention of technology, this would include
  • Technology for logging and tracking transactions, such as SAP
  • Technology for reporting of figures, such as Excel
  • Technology for counting, such as a calculator or an abacus
All of these fit together into a financial management framework, and the complexity and completeness of that framework needs to fit the scale of the operation. The framework listed above has 18 elements; large companies can easily have more elements. My small company has fewer. The person pictured at the top if this blog has a very simple framework - one person, an abacus, a money pot, tickets and a stapler, and a few process to support these.

Now what would happen if there were holes in that framework? Let's pick a few items from the framework listed above, remove them, and imagine what would happen.

  • Imagine there were no budget holders - what would happen then? With no accountability for managing a budget, it just would not get done. There would be no attention paid to budget management within the projects and operations, because it's nobody's job.
  • Imagine there was no process of financial reporting - what would happen then? Financial management would fall apart, because the company would have no record of money gained or spent during operations.
  • Imagine there was no consistent technology for financial management, what would happen then? Financial management would be a mess, as there would be no way of comparing and compiling financial figures from across the organisation.
  • Imagine there was no auditing - what would happen then? There would be no way of knowing if people were doing proper financial management, people would cut corners and fudge figures and pretty soon a consistent approach to financial management would disappear.
So there's our analogy. Financial management needs a minimum framework consistent with the scale of the business, and if there are holes in that framework, financial management becomes impossible.

It is the same for knowledge management!

Knowledge management needs a minimum framework, and if there are holes in that framework, knowledge management becomes impossible. Here are some equivalents to the holes mentioned above


  • Imagine there were no "KM holders" in the projects, the people accountable for KM within projects and operations - what would happen then? What would happen is that, with no accountability for managing KM activity, it just would not get done. There would be no attention paid to knowledge management within the projects and operations, because it's nobody's job.
  • Imagine there was no process of knowledge reporting - what would happen then? Knowledge management would fall apart, because the company would have no record of new knowledge gained  during operations.
  • Imagine there was no consistent technology for knowledge management, what would happen then? Knowledge management would be a mess, as there would be no way of comparing and compiling and communicating knowledge from across the organisation.
  • Imagine there was no auditing - what would happen then? There would be no way of knowing if people were doing proper knowledge management, people would cut corners and fudge figures and pretty soon a consistent approach to knowledge management would disappear.
So if your managers question the need for a KM Framework, and ask (for example) "do we really need defined roles for KM?", then ask them to imagine a financial management framework without defined roles.

Monday, August 22, 2011


Holes in the KM Framework - no silver bullet


holy bucketPicture referenced below One of the benefits of looking at Knowledge Management through the lens of a framework and not a toolbox (as described in my blog post - "knowledge evolution"), is that it makes it easier to see "what's missing".

Generally, what we find missing is - lots of things! By which I mean, very rarely do we find a KM framework with only one item missing. Usually there are lots of holes.

There are common holes - the common ones being related to elements of governance, several of the roles and accountabilities, and the issues of knowledge re-use and reapplication. And then there are company-specific holes - blindspots, or gaps in the technology system. The other week I visited a company who's KM approach was a toolbox-based approach, and they had many tools for knowledge collection and generation of content, but the entire side of the framework looking at knowledge synthesis and collation was missing. Already they were running into issues of what to do with contradictory or out-of-date content.

If there are lots of holes in the framework, then of course there is no "silver bullet" or (to avoid mixed metaphors) no simple patch. If you close one hole, then the framework still won't be effective, as many other holes stay open. Like a leaky bucket, closing one hole does not seal the bucket.

The benefit of the Framework approach, is that you can close all the holes in one go, and show that KM actually does "hold water". This takes more thought, more planning and more understanding than introducing a few tools, but in the long run will avoid false starts, and will avoid presenting the company with a leaky bucket labelled "knowledge management".


Picture uploaded by: mabelscritterart
In Webshots channel: outdoors

Friday, August 19, 2011


KM Introduction Video




We created this video as a basic introduction to the KM concept. All feedback welcome!

Thursday, August 18, 2011


KM failure stories number 9


#9 Here's a cautionary tale about losing your lessons database, from FEMA

"Federal emergency workers lost access to years' worth of lessons learned from Federal Emergency Management Agency responses to disasters when the server hosting an after-action database failed in May 2010, says the Homeland Security Department inspector general. In a report dated Jan. 19--made publically available on Feb. 8--the inspector general says FEMA officials have since recovered the data, but not the software necessary to read it.  
"The server failed shortly after agency senior management directed agency staff to stop using the database in favor of two newer systems, the web-based Corrective Action Program for describing known issues and the Lessons Learned Information Sharing System for lessons learned and best practices. Data on the old system, the Remedial Action Management Program, continued to reside on the server that failed. While FEMA was working to set up a data archiving system, they hadn't before it stopped working".
Oops!!

However the loss of the database does not seem to be an issue, as only 1% of FEMA staff used it.
"Most FEMA officials likely barely know that the old lessons learned data is no longer available to them, since the number of old systems users averaged 70 at its usage peak, according to the report. FEMA has 7,000 full time employees and 9,000 on-call employees who can be mobilized during a disaster. Some FEMA officials told auditors that the lessons learned could be clearer and more concise and that the committees writing after-action reviews spend too much time "wordsmithing" them.
"Internally, the Remedial Action Management Program hasn't been taken seriously, the report says--at least not since 2007, when a senior FEMA official decided to discontinue the program's practice of posting monthly reports with newly identified lessons learned and best practices. In order for emergency personnel to absorb the lessons learned, they must become part of the training curriculum, one regional official told auditors. During a disaster, "emergency personnel do not have the time to research previously identified lessons learned and best practices," the official said".
I blogged two days ago about the need for a Framework rather than a Toolbox. Here FEMA were using a small toolbox, consisting of After Action Reviews and a Lessons Database. Their framework was incomplete; there was no incorporation of the lessons into standard process, or into the training courses and training materials. The learning loop was incomplete. There was no system - no framework.
It's no surprise it fell into misuse.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011


Knowledge Management evolution - tool, toolbox, framework


Evolution of Mankind I had some interesting conversations in the last few weeks on the evolution of KM, especially given Nancy Dixon's evolution model.

It made me ponder on my own KM thinking over the past 19 years, and how that has evolved.

Stage 1 - focus on one or two tools

When I was working in Norway in the early to mid 90s, our KM approach was very simple. We were focusing on  one or two KM processes - the Retrospect, and a Lessons Database, under the care of a Knowledge Manager (me). In hindsight, this was a naive and rudimentary approach, and the lessons built up and up in the database until it became too full and too daunting for people to use as reference. We were focusing on one or two tools, and missing large chunks of KM.

There are quite a few organisations still at this stage. They have bought SharePoint, and think that this will deliver KM. Or they embed lesson-learning in their process, and expect that this will deliver results. Or they have Communities of Practice. Or Wikis. Or blogs.

But one tool alone will not deliver Knowledge Management.

Stage 2 - build a toolbox.

When I left Norway in 1997 and joined the BP Knowledge Management team, we already realised that we needed more than one KM tool. This is when we discovered the Learning Before, During and After model, and when we started to put together a Knowledge Management Toolbox including After Action Reviews, Peer Assist, Knowledge Assets, as well as the tools mentioned above. Certainly that gave us a little more in the way of success, but the success was largely down to the intervention of the KM team, and when the KM team withdrew, knowledge-sharing died away. That's because a toolbox is not enough. The BP toolbox was not embedded into the work practices of the organisation, the roles were not in place, and there was no governance. The attitude to KM was "here are a bunch of tools - we invite you to use them to deliver value". And largely, the organisation declined the invitation.

There are many organisations at this stage. We meet many of them in our consultancy practice. They have defined a KM toolbox - in some cases a very extensive toolbox. But KM remains optional, and it remains separate form the normal work process.

A toolbox alone will not deliver sustainable KM.

Stage 3 - implement a Framework.

When I let BP in 1999, Knowledge management was still at the Toolbox stage. Perhaps the Drillers had taken it further, but even they were struggling to make it work. In 2004 Tom and I worked with BP again to do a major review of Knowledge Management, and to look at where it was working, and what was missing. That's where the concept was born of a Knowledge Management Framework - a small defined set of tools, embedded into business process, and a small defined set of roles embedded into the organisational structure, all under an umbrella of Governance. At last, Knowledge Management was beginning to take on the aspects of other management systems, and to build a framework of roles, processes, technologies and governance which could be made part of the business. Just as Financial Management is not a single tool - budgets for example, or invoicing - and is not a toolbox ("you can try writing budgets if you like - here's a guide"), but is a complete framework embedded into the business process, so Knowledge Management needs a framework.

Where you see KM working well - in the Military, for example - they have such a framework in place. Increasingly we are beginning to see this happening in industry, as organisations realise they have to evolve beyond steps 1 and 2, in order to build a robust sustainable approach Io KM which can be embedded into "business as usual".

Blog Archive